4 9 8 3
! 8 6 4 2
# K Q 9 6 4 3
4 J 7 4 Q 10 6 5 4
! K Q 9 5 ! 3
# J 2 # 10 8 7
2 K Q 10 9 2 2 8 6 5 3
4 A K 2
! A J 10 7
# A 5
2 A J 7 4
The International Bridge Press Asociation - a sort of informal trade union - usually considers it bad form to comment on a colleague's writings. One comment, however, caught my eye in a report on the 1994 Far East Open Championship in Australian Bridge.
Just look at the North-South cards on this deal (East-West were not specified in detail) and see if you agree with the following comment:
"Australia played in Three No-trumps, making an easy ten tricks, whereas the Taiwan contract was Four Hearts. Diamonds broke 3-2 but the Hearts divided 4-1, making Four Hearts unmanageable. Ten IMPs to Australia."
Presumably the bidding was opened by South with Two No-trumps and one North raised simply to Three No-trumps while the other launched into a Stayman enauiry to establish the 4-4 heart fit before raising to game.
Given the distribution of the red suits, can you see my quarrel with the analysis?
Suppose that West makes his normal lead of the king of clubs. Declarer wins, discarding a spade from dummy, cashes the ace of hearts and then abandone trumps, simply playing on diamonds. Now, as long as the diamonds behave and the trumps are not 5-0, declarer has 10 tricks.Reuse content